Comments on: Was the Garnaut Report based on a statistically dubious science paper?

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:04:22 +0000

John H – Thanks.

By: Juel Briggs

Juel Briggs — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:44:51 +0000

Regarding models………Having emailed Garnaut last year, asking him whether the Garnaut report would include assessments of the economic impacts of carbon trading on Small and Medium Manufacturers, I got the following reply, “Many of your questions could not be definitively answered by economic modeling as there are many compounding sources of uncertainty in the climate change science and impacts analysis, as well as uncertainties inherent in undertaking economic modelling over long time periods.” Say no more.

By: John H

John H — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:07:07 +0000

PS:

If John Humphreys runs again in Qld I hope it is mentioned here. I voted for him last time and will vote for him again.

By: John H

John H — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:52:08 +0000

Terje,

You are one libertarian I would like to see in govt.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:18:22 +0000

JC – thanks. Our differences are mostly about form rather than substance. And half the reason I blog is to encounter different ways of looking at things. I don’t expect to make another serious tilt (long shot or otherwise) at trying to win a seat until 2016 or later. In the interum I’m hoping that some other libertarians can break through for the LDP. In any case my earlier statement had nothing to do with political posturing and was simply a thought I shared.

By: jc

jc — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:08:25 +0000

Terje

and I’m sorry if I sounded terse earlier. You’re a “brother” in the sense that disagreements are tiny if any.

And if you ever decided to run and win a senate seat the country would he better off by multiples.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:13:24 +0000

JC – your proposed action plan sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Taxing carbon and cutting income tax would mitigate some political risks. Risks that are currently being realised by way of dud alternatives.

By: Michael Sutcliffe

Michael Sutcliffe — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:04:54 +0000

Possibly just watching as the warming is actually quite benign over the past 100 years or so… .65 degrees which is hardly a huge concern.

IPCC mid range is 2% in 2100 which is really quite manageable.

Do nothing and watch or perhaps even tax carbon and reduce income taxes.

That pretty much summarises it for me. I’d probably add one extra point that there is no definitive science which identifies what is going on, at least not on the balance of probabilities – so any action we take is actually pretty close to arbitrary in nature. The carbon tax plus offset by reductions of other taxes just makes it in as a rational piece of ‘insurance’.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:14:07 +0000

JC — I agree that a lot of people are fear-mongering and exaggerating well past the point of reasonable science. And I agree that the science does not justify bad public policy (including the current ETS proposal).

By: jc

jc — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:01:52 +0000

If you are adopting my position then we agree.